httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter J. Cranstone" <Cranst...@worldnet.att.net>
Subject RE: Apache 164 percent speed increase
Date Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:34:38 GMT
ROFL...

10 transactions per second was your 'laugh test'.... 10 transactions per
second of a 10,495 byte  document over a dial up modem is IMPOSSIBLE. That's
1,049,500 ( 1 MILLION plus ) BYTES PER SECOND!

Sorry, I thought you'd understand the results put out by ab better than
this.

Anyway, as you can see we actually more than DOUBLE the number of
transactions per second using compression. 21 transactions per second jumped
to 56 or a 166% improvement. "The assertion about saving modem users
bandwidth is ludicrous". What is ludicrous is that statement. I'm going to
let you do the math. It's very simple.

Index.html at Yahoo is 10,495 bytes. connected at 28K it takes 2.92 seconds
to transmit that document and consumes 10,495 bytes of bandwidth. Please
enter here:______ what the modem saves.

Now lets compress index.html even gzip gets about 72% to reduce the file to
2,886 bytes. transmission time is 8 tenths of a second and consumes 2,886
bytes. Please enter here:_____ what the modem saves.

If the second answer is SMALLER than the first which it will be, then guess
what. Compressing HTML output is more efficient than transmitting it
uncompressed.

What don't you understand here. The server transmits 72% FEWER bytes to the
user. It gets there 72% FASTER than a standard web server. Which FREE's the
web server up to handle MORE requests.

I'm sorry you can't understand simple math, as for "spew" well I think you
need to revisit AB and understand how it works.


Regards,

Peter J. Cranstone
Cranstone@RemoteCommunications.com
http://www.remotecommunications.com

-----Original Message-----
From: new-httpd-owner@apache.org [mailto:new-httpd-owner@apache.org]On
Behalf Of Jeffrey W. Baker
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 11:21 PM
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache 164 percent speed increase

"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
[...]
> As for your "whatever" comment. Let's see, with compression turned on, the
> server is faster, bandwidth is saved, the consumers experience is improved
> and the web server transmission cycles are reduced. Please respond as to
why
> this is not a desired feature for any web server.
[...]

In what way is 0.56 requests per second on static content faster than
anything?  Even with only one client, I would expect to see at least 10
requests per second before your system even passed my laugh test.

The assertion about saving modem users' bandwith is ludicrous.  Even old
modems have hardware compression algorithms that compress HTML and other
repetitive text very well.  With good hardware (~$50) 2:1 text
compression is unremarkable.

Honestly I was completely unable to glean the slightest bit of a point
from this spew.

-jwb


Mime
View raw message